The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S.weizmann Ltd
High Court
02 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S.weizmann Ltd
Date of order
02 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S.weizmann Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In view of dismissal of both the Notices of Motion, both the respective Appeals also stand dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3250 OF 2007
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3250 OF 2007
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3250 OF 2007
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1767 OF 2007
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1767 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax-1 .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Weizmann Ltd. .. Respondent
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3251 OF 2007
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3251 OF 2007
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3251 OF 2007
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1768 OF 2007
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1768 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax-1 .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Weizmann Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr.A.S.Rao with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant.
Mr.A.K.Jasani for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 2nd April, 2008
DATE : 2nd April, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By
these Notices of Motion, the Appellant-revenue is
seeking condonation of 1075 days’ delay caused in filing
the aforesaid Appeals.
2. Perused the affidavit in support of the Notice of
Motion. As stated therein, it appears that the impugned
order was passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Mumbai Bench on 24.3.2004 and the said order was
received by the Department which handles Appeals on
27.04.2004, and thereafter the matter was referred to
the Assessing Officer, DCIT (HQ)-1, Mumbai, who
submitted his report on 23.08.2006 recommending thereby
filing of the Appeal. It appears that the Assessing
Officer did not take action till 23.08.2006 i.e.almost
for a period of 26 months and thereafter recommended for
filing of the Appeals. There is absolutely no
explanation as to why the Assessing Officer took almost
26 months to recommend filing of the Appeals. No
sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay
caused in filing of the Appeals. The affidavits in
support of both the Notices of Motion are without
sufficient explanation. Hence, both the Notices of
Motion stand dismissed.
3. Appellant - Revenue Department is directed to take
action against the concerned Assessing Officer, DCIT
(HQ)-1, Mumbai, for his belated filing of the report
thereby delaying his recommedations for filing of the
Appeals almost for a period of 26 months. Department to
take appropriate action against the concerned Assissing
Officer and recover loss which occurred to the
Department, in accordance with law.
4. In view of dismissal of both the Notices of Motion,
both the respective Appeals also stand dismissed.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.